For some reason I thought the debate was going to be about a specific god, not some generic dipshit who might exist somewhere in the universe.

Which god are you going to try to prove to exist, Augusto?

YHWH (Christian God)

I guess Lucifer might "try" to offer an argument that this God could also be Zeus, and I will enjoy destroying that argument as well. It cannot be any God but YHWH and I can argument my position (If Lucifer is willing to lose another point).

Note: Remember it have been impossible to prove God's existence as well as his non-existence. The point of the debate is to determine which position have more weight, and as a result, rational people should follow the position with more weight. Also, there is no formal conclusion on this, everyone should make his choice.

I guess Lucifer might "try" to offer an argument that this God could also be Zeus, and I will enjoy destroying that argument as well. It cannot be any God but YHWH and I can argument my position (If Lucifer is willing to lose another point).

OK, well so far you just made a copy/pasta attempt at proving some generic dipshit god. If you are trying to prove YHWH then so far you've done a poor job. I know it's your first post in the debate, but hopefully you will post something biblical and show how that biblical god has all those qualities. Which, he might, no doubt. But from your first post you've not proven your argument yet.

But based on your first argument we can go ahead and declare the background radiation left over from the big bang as god and leave it at all.

« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 08:28:31 PM by Emily »

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Note: Remember it have been impossible to prove God's existence as well as his non-existence. The point of the debate is to determine which position have more weight, and as a result, rational people should follow the position with more weight. Also, there is no formal conclusion on this, everyone should make his choice.

I agree that it is impossible to disprove a generic god, BUT it's pretty easy to disprove certain gods given what we know about their attributes that are found in those god's holybooks.

So I think you are going to just try prove the god the deists believe in, and honestly when it comes to a belief in god they are the closest to being correct.

Logged

"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

There will be all kind of arguments (at least by my side), but the ammount of them is too big, I just preffer to go point by point, so everyone reads, otherwise you would be reading a whole book in one post and nobody wants that right?

So far the point is pretty good:

There is something that have the basic qualities of God, therefore, God can exist. The first point is so important that it might actually be part of God. Just see... this freed particle is basically light, and it have intelligence, it is infinite, it is pretty much all powerful (understanding that such word is a mistake by itself, but it is enough to understand what it means) and it is everywhere.

This point directly toward the existence of God, and even if we cannot say it is God, we can at least have a reasonable base to consider believing.

It seemed impossible 100 years ago that such thing could be possible... something "infinite", something "eternal" something intelligent... just THINK.

Its not an empty point for those who are open-minded. THINK: If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

Its not an empty point for those who are open-minded. THINK: If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

I would advise you stay away from this subject in this thread. It will take over. People who misunderstand what atheism is say it all the time. They are wrong too. If you want to start a different thread in an effort to get raked over the coals twice as much, go ahead. But I hope we can keep away from it here.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

nope, not at all.

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Maybe you should just post in here, doesn't it look hypocrite to point at a minor flaw in my post by irrupting in the debate? please don't do that. There's no need, there are several moderators online, there is PM and there is this topic.

Augusto I posted in your debate thread interrupting your debate purely because while you were busy copying and pasting chunks of supposedly "your" argument you seemed completely unconcerned about attributing, and by definition if you do not attribute your sources you are presenting the arguments as your own.

As I had previously read your exact arguments elsewhere, I posted the evidence of your disingenuousness to the debate thread as the most direct method of exposing that less than honest behaviour to those most involved, namely your opponent, and the mods.

Post engineering a compliance to site requirements by scurrying around late posting attribution does not give you an automatic honourable behaviour badge of merit, nor does attempting to minimise the (possibly accidental) deceitfulness of the act by calling it a "minor flaw".

You might like to argue that Lucifer's arguments are not his own, but again this is you engineering a reality that suits your needs of the moment.

Lucifer will present his arguments in his own words no doubt, and when he chooses to introduce slabs of others' text into his posts, he will no doubt post attribution so you will know whom you are actually addressing at all times.

Elsewhere, it seems a shame that you are unable to recognise the act of poor attribution as being anything more than a minor flaw when your entire defence, of the idea that idiotic contradictions within the "word of god" bible are not indication of the non-existence your 3O god, relies on the argument of "poor attribution".

There are 4 primary attribute that describe what a Great Over-competent Debator (God) would be. If any of these attributes are found in one post, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.

4 Primary attributes are:

Eternally optimistic - in the face of defeatOmnipresentation- all over the place Impotent- shooting blanks Niscience- Combination of Christianity and New Age spirituality (YAWEY & Quantum woo)

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

So, Augusto is trying to argue that YHWH is more likely possible, because of those four attributes? Really?

Is there anything outside of the OT or NT that supports YHWH as the one and only almighty creator? Or is this just an attempt at claiming that such a god is possible, and that the Bible just happened to nail it? (I guess it nailed Jesus, but not so much YHWH).

I would have to end my reply with "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about". Don't know who said that, but it's brilliant.

Augusto, if you are going to post this type of stuff, you might as well be posting conspiracy theories. It's New Ager waffle, not science. How is Lucifer supposed to demonstrate that the author of "Vernetzte Intelligenz" isn't a fruitcake? (Besides the obvious) If you are going to quote science, there needs to be a hope of finding peer reviews for it, or someone else who believes it, beside the author of a book.

If you are to convince us that God exists, you need to post information or logic that doesn't create embarrassment.

I'm almost glad I wasn't the chosen for this particular debate.It looks like right from the get go, to be an exercise in logical fallacies.

Lets take a look at the initial comment though. This appears to be the bullet points concept, that was latter appended with a DaveMabus sized spread of cheese.

Quote

Okay, I'll start.

There are 4 primary attribute that describe what God would be. If any of these attributes are found in one force, then we can continue on, to see if God is real.

These 4 primary attributes are:

1) Eternal, not involved with the flow of our time.2) Omnipresent, found everywhere.3) Omnipotent, all powerful.4) Omniscient, having all knowledge.

If God is proven to exist, then we must find a force that is eternal. If such force cannot be found, then God's existence cannot be proven. If all primary atributes are found in one force it might help to prove God CAN exist.

Here in a nutshell is the non-argument presented;First, it does not posit that there is actually a god, only that if there were, it would contain XYZ attributes.Then, we see a bunch of un-provable attributes, that apparently describe the generic 'omnimax' diety.*THEN* we see that he does not posit that this god actually exists, only that if it did, it would be the god that he described, maybe.

Augusto has not presented an argument.Having not presented an argument, the debate flounders since there is nothing to rebut.

I could go on, but ultimately the post never really reaches a coherent point or presentation beyond this.

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

"The full article can be viewed - in English - on the Kontext website below.

All information is from the book "Vernetzte Intelligenz" von Grazyna Fosar und Franz Bludorf, ISBN 3930243237, summarized and commented by Baerbel. The book is unfortunately only available in German so far. You can reach the authors here:

The name "Pjotr Garjajev" pops up only in obscure blogs and creationist websites. It would be great is Augusto could point to some recognized journals or publications that have accepted Garjajev's efforts.

A "force" eh? Force can be broken down. F = ma (mass times acceleration), where the 'm' can be measured in kilograms. The 'a' is acceleration, which can be accurately represented in metres per second squared: a = m/s^2. Without the concept of time, you can't have the concept of a force. So Augusto, Luci is entirely correct when he said that "a force outside of time" is meaningless. If you don't mean "force" then you should probably avoid using the word "force".

couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs

I find this somewhat ironic when you are trying to fit fairly recently discovered "science" to support a belief that was formed thousands of years ago. Surely if it were logical to have that belief (since, as you put it, their side would have more weight to their arguments) all you would need is the information available at the time when that belief was discovered/formed.Now.. it seems like which side does has already decided that they know what is right and then go on to try and make any information available after that point fit in with their belief?? Oh yes, that's right.. it must be the one that doesn't even have a belief to protect.

There will be all kind of arguments (at least by my side), but the ammount of them is too big, I just preffer to go point by point, so everyone reads, otherwise you would be reading a whole book in one post and nobody wants that right?

Wow, are you ever arrogant. I'd just love to read this 'whole book' that you claim. And believe me when I say that there would be a whole book, and more so, for the arguments supporting your side. Enough books to fill the shelves of the world's largest library.

But these books aint gonna be Shakespeare in quality. They'd be more like what would happen if Dr. Suess and Walt Disney sat down and wrote books together, with William Hannah and Joseph Barbera proof reading, and Mel Blanc being that goofball making cool voices dictating what was written into some stone-aged dictaphone.

The reason for so many arguments 'supporting' your side of the debate is because the supporters of your side of the debate are just good at coming up with lame excuses to when your side is faced with a sound rebuttal. Excuses like special pleading, god of the gaps, irreducible complexity, and a dozen non-sequiturs for equal measure.

Whenever your side is faced with a rebuttal it is quick to turn that rebuttal into one phrase: it's god, he can do anything! And following that phrase with pages upon pages of special pleading, which is a tactic I am expecting you to take. This god character has so many attributes that theists use as artillery to fire off at atheist debaters it's easy to see how you could provide arguments that would amount to a whole book.

But your arguments, aren't always correct. Not by logic, or by nature anyways. And sometimes not by the books that describe certain deities. And luckily for us we have holy books that list that god's actions in the universe and its attributes that it's easy to call specific holy books bluff. Personally speaking, I find that if a holy book is wrong about god's action in one sense then that holy book can be discarded in its entirety because I believe holy books are supposed to be inerrant. And luckily for our side the holy book of the god you propose exists is completely full of bullshit when it comes to evidence to support it, it's easy to discard your god as non-existent

But then again, go ahead. You are right, sort of. The arguments you can toss our would take up a whole book, and more! But if I were to find one of those books of arguments at the book store they would be in the 'Religious' section, and (at least in the book story I shop at) the religion section is completely separate from the Non-Fiction section.

Quote

There is something that have the basic qualities of God, therefore, God can exist. The first point is so important that it might actually be part of God. Just see... this freed particle is basically light, and it have intelligence, it is infinite, it is pretty much all powerful (understanding that such word is a mistake by itself, but it is enough to understand what it means) and it is everywhere.

If light was everywhere they why do we have darkness. Or, if god is everywhere, and god is good, why do we have evil?

It can be argued that your god gave us free will, and that it is omniscience, omnipotent,and omnipresent. If so, then this god character your support is definitely not worthy of any worship, and it's definitly not worthy of anyone trying to make a claim that it exists. If it is so perfect then it totally fucked up this universe on purpose to make its creation suffer, turn to it to try to make it better, give its creation an excuse for it not to make this world better[1], and walks away.

And if it's all powerful then it hasn't shown the best it can do. To quote George Carlin:

So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So, yeah. I guess it can be added that this omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent god is also omni-incompetent too.

Quote

This point directly toward the existence of God, and even if we cannot say it is God, we can at least have a reasonable base to consider believing.

Well, until this god (or its fanboys) can prove it exists, then we don't have a reason for believing. It gave us no reason too consider its existence.

Personally, I am an agnostic atheist: I cannot prove god doesn't exist, but I don't believe one does. With that comes the idea that if a god does exist then it doesn't really give a shit if I do believe it exists or not. Personally, I'd rather not be bullied into believing in something where there is a more natural reason for our existence that doesn't include the mention of its name that than to believe in something blindly and without evidence.

Quote

A reasonable base for believing in what? It seemed impossible 100 years ago that such thing could be possible... something "infinite", something "eternal" something intelligent... just THINK.

But who cares in just believing. You need to specify believing in what. You need to give it a specific name. You chose the name YHWH. And honestly, this YHWH character seems to go against it's own qualities that its believers give it.

Quote

Its not an empty point for those who are open-minded. THINK: If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

Wow, dude. So atheism is a religion in the non-belief in a deity? That just sounds stupid. Atheists are brain-washed and are fighting to protect their own beliefs? That sounds stupid too. All atheists demand is physical evidence. Is that so hard? Let me apologize for the atheist community: Sorry our standards are set so high. Actually, wait. Demanding physical evidence is the best way to go. When demanding physical evidence at least it gives a good reason to believe in {whatever} based on our senses.

It's just wrong to believe in something blindly, because at the end you'll probably look like a fool, a smuck, and just completely wrong.

Augusto, if you are going to post this type of stuff, you might as well be posting conspiracy theories. It's New Ager waffle, not science.

Yeah, pretty much. Here's a good rule of thumb regarding matters of medicine, religion, philosophy, and... well, pretty much most areas (if not all areas) other than physics: if you see the word "quantum", then what you're reading is almost certainly crap.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Augusto, if you are going to post this type of stuff, you might as well be posting conspiracy theories. It's New Ager waffle, not science.

Yeah, pretty much. Here's a good rule of thumb regarding matters of medicine, religion, philosophy, and... well, pretty much most areas (if not all areas) other than physics: if you see the word "quantum", then what you're reading is almost certainly crap.

WHAT! You mean my shampoo is crap???

Logged

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. - Martin Luther

"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think." - Hitler

If atheism is pretty much like a religion (and you have seen my reasons to claim that), couldn't it be possible that some members of the atheist-religion are already brain-washed, and are fighting to protect their beliefs, just like any other religion, against all reason and logic?

nope, not at all.

I'm just going to point at this video. Why can't I post videos and this guy can? please stop the arbitrarity, this is the same I've been seeing with the unfair negative Darwings and unappropiate comments I've got since I came here. What are the rules for? If for me only, let me know.

Neither side is going to be allowed to post videos in a formal debate. Outside of the debate, you can post videos. We aren't interested in the opinion of people in videos - we are interested in YOUR opinion in the debate. What's the point of the debate if you are simply going to point to other people's opinions in videos? The answer is that there is no point in the debate if that's what you are going to do. Those are the rules - no videos. That's a lazy way to debate someone.

Now please debate Lucifer with your OWN knowledge and thoughts, backed up with an occasional reference to outside sources appropriately cited.

Quote

... this is the same I've been seeing with the unfair negative Darwings and unappropiate comments I've got since I came here.

Darwins can be given out as members please as long as they give a reason for the Darwin point. Is that news to you?

I'm just going to point at this video. Why can't I post videos and this guy can? please stop the arbitrarity, this is the same I've been seeing with the unfair negative Darwings and unappropiate comments I've got since I came here. What are the rules for? If for me only, let me know.

This thread is a commentary thread separate from the debate thread. You are free to ignore it or participate, but if you join into this thread, you cannot connect it to your actual debate thread and ask for adjustments to the discussion.

Yours is a debate, with only you and Lucifer, this is a commentary thread where everyone is allowed to comment - and specific debate rules do not apply.

HAL: I ask you to act with justice, the rules shouldn't apply only to me, and I don't mean only the video. I have no problem in not posting videos (even when that is not in the forum rules), but if you keep trying to put me (and only me) in a jacket force, I can just make your life easier and leave the community.

Ridiculous sir. If you cannot debate a person without posting videos then so be it. It's up to you - can you stand on your own two feet or not?

Quote

Lucifer: First of all you did not offer a second argument; neither had you defended your first argument. Therefore, if I win this argument, or the next one I'm going to post you should, by rule (because it was specified before the debate started), lose.

If this is not the case, and you do have more arguments and/or something to say about my refute to your initial argument you should pay more attention to the rules we should be following. That includes using an appropriated, civil language, which you also ignored.

Directed to Lucifer, he can read it here.

Quote

This, along with HAL's arbitrary actions (of removing my youtube videos) should be more than enough for me to quit from this debate. Not to mention he asked me what the name of this debate should be only to come up with his own name, mocking of me.

Again ridiculous. I still left the link so people could reference them. No videos are allowed because WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN JOE BLOW'S OPINIONS IN A VIDEO.

Quote

Therefore, I will wait for you to edit your response and fix whatever you need to fix before answering, as well as the pertinent apologize, because you both broke the rules of this debate. This shouldn't be a very difficult or unfair request, since I have already apologized to Monkeymind for example, and to everyone who might have been offended by my posts, so I'm not asking for what I haven't done, and I'm not asking for anything but respect.

This, because I believe it should be possible to continue with the debate instead of just move away from the hostility of this community, for I have been invited by others. The only reason I'm staying, even when rules have been broken is because I don't want anyone to think I'm quitting because of "fear". Truth is, I can respond to your arguments, but I refuse to do so unless some things are fixed. Do I deserve less respect than any other member just because I have different opinions than those of the majority?

Thanks in advance.

I'll let others make some comments now, I'm going to get another cup of coffee.